An article on nrl.com designed to draw public sympathy for Inglis.Â The words "accusation" and "allegedly" used generously and an absence of "disgraced" and similar derogatory terms. The only accounts were in support of Inglis.Â No inflammatory analyses of domestic violence.Â No women's rights groups or people with violence against women agendas interviewed.Â Gallop not quoted emotively rambling on about player misbehaviour and "face of the game" and "double demerits" and the like.

Not that the nrl shouldn't pour oil on troubled waters ... just the inconsistency is stark.Â Are they willing to admit yet that they totally bungled their handling of the Stewie allegations?

I meant after their loss to us.Â I read somewhere he hasn't trained this week and is in a fragile psychological state.Â Smokescreen?Â Perhaps, but it wouldÂ be a massive humiliation for Gallop.Â

Click to expand...

They only need to name him an hour before kickoff and it he'd be on the field before gallop could act - that said it's Melbourne and he wouldn't act anyway,
in future I think we say where suspending a guy indefinitely and then just name him the next week an hour before kickoff as well.

An article on nrl.com designed to draw public sympathy for Inglis.Â The words \"accusation\" and \"allegedly\" used generously and an absence of \"disgraced\" and similar derogatory terms. The only accounts were in support of Inglis.Â No inflammatory analyses of domestic violence.Â No women's rights groups or people with violence against women agendas interviewed.Â Gallop not quoted emotively rambling on about player misbehaviour and \"face of the game\" and \"double demerits\" and the like.

Not that the nrl shouldn't pour oil on troubled waters ... just the inconsistency is stark.Â Are they willing to admit yet that they totally bungled their handling of the Stewie allegations?

Click to expand...

To even compare what Inglis is acused of doing and what Stewart is acused of is like chalk and cheese.I'm not downgrading what Inglis is charged with but it is NOT in the same ballpark of Stewarts charges.Don't get me wrong violence against women of any level is NOT on but please don't try to downplay how serious the charges Stewart faces.If Inglis is found guilty of his charges he will most likely have a good behaviour order on him,were as If Stewart is found guilty he will be looking at gaol time.

If he doesn't play this Sunday and they lose (which they will), he'll certainly be playing the following week.Â Why would a club deliberately put the home game in the finals in jeopardy?Â That just doesn't make any sense.Â

So much of the action taken by NRL and individual clubs relates to appeasing sponsors and public image concerns (based on media reports) rather than a deep belief in what they are doing. Bottom line is that the NRL doesn't have any deep principles with each situation determining their action rather than a manner of approaching this in a reasoned and rational manner.

At the least there should be an independent panel of respected ex-Judges or something similar that can be called upon when a player supposedly brings the game into disrepute. The clubs also should be called upon to voluntarily develop (in the off-season) a set of principles in which players are stood down.

There must be presumption of innocense for legal charges but also protection to the game, which has taken a terrible battering this year.

Compare the AFL approach. Â This year Nathan Bock, the Crows best player was alleged ejected from a hotel and assaulted his girlfriend. Â Alcohol-fueled, apparently admitted and no question of innocence. Â The Crows suspended Bock for one game which they said he could not have played in anyway because of his mental state. Â The AFL approved the Crows actions. Â The question is why aren't the AFL leadership reactionary puppets, whereas Gallop is?